The Trump administration’s decision to waive the Jones Act for energy shipments over the past 100 days has significantly revitalized U.S. domestic fuel transport, according to recent analyses of shipping data. Instituted in mid-March amid rising geopolitical tensions related to the Iran war, the waiver allows ships that do not comply with the Jones Act’s strict requirements to transport energy products and fertilizer between U.S. ports until August 16.

The Jones Act mandates that goods moving between American ports be shipped on vessels built, owned, flagged, and crewed by U.S. entities. While intended to protect the domestic maritime industry, the law has long been criticized for inflating shipping costs and limiting the availability of compliant vessels. U.S. ships are estimated to cost four to five times more to build and more than four times as much to operate compared to foreign counterparts, and fewer than 60 of the world’s roughly 7,500 oil tankers meet Jones Act requirements. This has often made importing fuel from overseas less expensive than shipping domestically, constraining internal energy trade.

The waiver appears to have triggered a surge in domestic maritime energy shipments. Data analysis indicates that in the roughly three months since the waiver took effect, vessels operating under it transported approximately 30% more oil and petroleum products to the U.S. West Coast than Jones Act-compliant ships typically do in a year. Notably, shipments of jet fuel from the Gulf Coast to the West Coast exceeded the total volume transported between those regions over the previous 27 years. Similarly, propane deliveries from the mainland U.S. to Puerto Rico during the waiver’s first 80 days surpassed shipments made in the prior 22 years combined. Other new trade flows included gasoline from Texas to Hawaii and jet fuel from Louisiana to Alaska, as well as fuel shipments across the Great Lakes from Ohio to Wisconsin.

Industry voices acknowledge that such internal trade has long been restricted by the Jones Act. The CEO of Overseas Shipholding Group, a Jones Act tanker company, previously indicated that without the law, shipments of crude oil from Texas to Philadelphia would be more frequent—a scenario now borne out by about 5 million barrels moving from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast under the waiver. Additionally, companies such as Phillips 66 have reported substituting imported crude with domestic supplies, while Puerto Rico has begun sourcing propane from the mainland U.S. instead of Chile, a shift previously prevented by vessel availability constraints under the Jones Act.

Concerns raised by Jones Act proponents—that loosening restrictions would lead to a flood of foreign vessels, particularly from China, endangering national security and maritime jobs—have not materialized according to the data. Of more than 130 voyages under the waiver, about 10% involved vessels with Chinese or Hong Kong ownership or management, and only one Chinese-flagged ship participated. Moreover, the vessels employed under the waiver are on average newer than Jones Act ships, and no American vessels or maritime workers have been idled as a result.

The waiver has functioned as a de facto experiment, highlighting the costs imposed by the Jones Act’s protections. By enabling cheaper and more efficient domestic energy transport, it has shown potential economic benefits including increased trade flows and cost reductions. With the waiver set to expire in mid-August, stakeholders note that without legislative action to reform or repeal the Jones Act, the country risks reverting to higher shipping costs and constrained internal markets. Some industry analysts suggest that permanent changes could extend beyond energy, positively impacting sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing by enabling more competitive and efficient shipment of goods within the United States.